ML20030C430
| ML20030C430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108260098 | |
| Download: ML20030C430 (20) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!! MISSION BEFORE T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50 'M0 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
50-251
)
(Proposed Amendments to Facility (Tarkey Point Nuclear Generating
)
Operating Licenses to Permit Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
)
SteamGeneratorRepair)
N' g
qh i
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO 9
@@# j INTERVENOR EXCEPTIONS TO LICENSING,~
< @ *[3 '
BOARD ORDER DATED MAY 28, 1981 f o
C
$/ / I'y\\
Steven C. Goldberg
~
Counsel for NRC Staff
{
1 August 24, 1981 i
E s
l l 8108260098 810824 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G
PDR 36C7
. _.. _ _,. _ _ _.. _. _ _. ~
-i-TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
I.
INTRODUCTION.........................
1
- 11. STATEMENT OF CASE......................
4 III. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 5
IV. ARGUtlENT...........................
1.
The Licensing Board did not err in granting summary disposition of contention 1.
The Intervenor has presented no canuine issues of material fact regarding the 5
legal and factual sufficiency of the FES 2.
The Licensing Board did not err in granting summary disposition of contention 4B. There are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the likelihood that in. permissible levels of radiation will be released to unrestricted areas as a result of a hurricane striking the site during 12 the steam generator repair................
(a) Summary Disposition of That Portion of 12 Contention 4B Regarding Steam Generators......
13 (b) New Matter Related to Contention 48 15 Intervenor's request for oral argument should be denied.
3.
16 V.
CONCLUSION..........................
s I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Page I.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS 6,11 Sierra Club v. Kleppe, 427 U.S. 390 (1976)
Scientists Institute for Public Information v. AEC, 11 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1973) 7 HRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir.1972)........
II. NRC DECISIONS Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant),
6 ALA6-636, 13 NRC
, (March 31, 1981)
Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Hos. 3 and 4), LBP-79-21,10 NRC 183 (1979)..
2 Northern States Pc. er Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 (1978).........
6,7 Portland Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB-531, 6,11 9 NRC 263 (1979)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear 6
Power Station), ALAS-245, 8 AEC 873 (1974)..........
Virginia Electric & Power Co. (Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-4, 11 NRC 405 (1980) 6,11 Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power StdLion, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451 (1980).
5,6,16 9
~
i i
iii 111. REGULATI0flS Page 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749.....................
5,8,13 14 10 C.F.R. 5 2.760.....................
i4 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762.....................
4 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788.....................
12 10 C.F.R. Part 20.....................
1 9
i 10 C.F.R. Part 51.....................
IV. FEDERAL REGISTER I40TICES I
OTHER i
8 40 C.F.R. 1500, et, seg.
1 e
i l
I s
4 a~-n 3 --
,n.-,--,..,,,,,-
---,----,,,.,..,,,-,,y,,..,,-
na.,.,,
,v.,,,,,nr
,,., ~. - - -.,, - - - -,,,,,-
-,,,,,.m,--c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
50-251
)
(Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
)
Operating Licenses to Permit Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
)
Steam Generator Repair)
NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR EXCEPTIONS TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER DATED MAY 28, 1981 I.
INTRODUCTION On June 6, 1981, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's May 28, 1981 Memorandum and Order granting summary disposition of the two outstanding contentions and cancelling a hearing thereon in this proceeding on the licensee's request for authorization to effect steam generator repairs. The Board retained jurisdiction over one technical matter raised in the Intervenor's pleading opposing summary disposition and The requested the parties to address the matter in additional filings.
parties did so and on June 19, 1981 and the Board entered a Final Order reaffirming its May 28 decision and authorizing the issuance of the requested license amendments. The NRC Staff supports the Board's grant of summary disposition.
II.
STATEMENT OF CASE This license amendment proceeding was initiated upon publication of a notice of opportunity for hearing in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 13, 1977 (42 Fed. Reg. 62569). No timely intervention petitions were filed-pursuant" to this notice. On February 9,1979, thirteen months late, an intervention petition was filed by Mark P. Oncavage. After several rounds of responsive pleadings, this late intervention petition was granted by a divided Licensing Board on August 3,1979.
10 NRC 183 (1979).
On September 25, 1979, ten contentions were admitted as issues in the proceeding. One of the contentions (Contention 1) asserted that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was required for the proposed action. On June 29, 1979, the NRC Staff issued an environmental impact dppraisal which concluded that the proposed action would not result in a significant impact upon the environment and, hence, that an EIS was not required. However, the Staff subsequently decided to prepare an environ-mental impact statement as a matter of discretion in this case. M In December,1980, the Staff issued its Draft Environmental Statement and circulated it for comment. The Final Environmental Statement (FES) was issued in March, 1981.
On March 24, 1981, a final prehearing conference was held at which time the contentions were renumbered and reformulated, to an extent, in anticipation of trial. The Board granted the Intervenor leave to file a later amendment to Contention 1 in order to " plead with specificity the respects in which the FES...does not legally or factually comply with If See letter from Staff counsel to the Licensing Board, dated March 6, 1980. This decision was influenced by a Commission Memorandum and Order directing the issuance of an environmental impact statement in connection with the Surry steam generator repairs after the Cornission was unable to determine "whether the environocroal impacts
[thbrefromj are significant." Virginia Electric Power Co. (Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-4,11 NRC 405, 407 (1980).
NEPA."U On April 20, 1981, the Intervenor filed a proposed amendment to Contention 1.
The Staff objected to the proposed amendment on both procedural and substantive grounds.E In the alternative, the Staff moved for summary disposition of Contention 1, as amended.O Over the same period of time, separate Staff and Applicant motions for summary disposition of eight contentions were filed and granted by the Board with either the agreement or non-opposition of the Intervenor.M The Intervenor opposed the final Staff motion for sumary disposition of Contentions 1 and 4B.
In its May 28, 1981 Memorandum and Order, the Board granted sumary disposition of remaining contentions 1 and 4B. At the same time, the Board directed the parties to submit detailed information about the onsite storage of low-level solid waste generated by the proposed steam generator repairs, a matter first raised in the Intervenor's response to the final Staff motion for summary dispositi:".. Following the receipt of the parties' replies, the Board entered its Final Order of June 19, 1981 in which it concluded that "the impact of a hurricane or tornado on the y
Tr. 36, 38-39, 43; Memorandum and Order, dated April 6,1981, at 4.
y See NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Contentions and Third Motion for Sumary Disposition, dated April 27, 1981.
y Id.
5/
See Licensing Board Memorandum and Orders, dated April 2, 29 and May, 7, 1981.
~
e
. s 4-
[ low-level wastej produced by the steam generator repairs and temporarily stored on site at Turkey Point will not pose a significant radiological hazard to the public." Slip op, at 6.
The Board thereby reaf firmed its fiay 28, 1981 Memorandum and Order and, on the basis of the entire record, authorized the issuance of the requested license amendment,. The amendments were issued on June 24, 1981 and the repairs were immediately begun.
On June 24, 1981, the Intervenor filed an application for a stay of the Board's Final Order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. s 2.788(d) pending appeal.
The Staff and Applicant have opposed the stay request.
III.
ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 1.
Whether the Licensing Board correctly determined that the Intervenor had failed to present a genuine issue of fact regarding the legal and factual sufficiency of the Final Environmental Statement so as to warrant summary disposition of Contention 1.
2.
Whether the Licensing Board correctly determined that the f
Intervenor had failed to present a genuine issue of fact regarding the release of impermissible levels of radiation as a result of a hurricane l
striking during the repair 50 as to warrant summary diposition of i
Contention 4B.
,w
-.-=-
e e
-2
--n,----
--3-m
-g e-IV. ARGUMENT 1.
The Licensing Board did not err in granting summary disposition of Contention 1.
The Intervenor has presented no genuine issues of material fact regarding the legal and tactual sutticiency of the FES The Commission's regulations provide that summary disposition of a matter at issue can be obtained on the pleadings if the moving papers demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a favorable decision as a matter of law.
10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(d). A party opposing the motion must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
10 C.F.R. l 2.749(b);
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-451, 11 NRC 451, 453 (1980).
Tne North Anna decision establishes a precedent for the termination of an operating license amendment proceeding in its entirety on summary disposition. The Licensing Board in the instant proceeding followed this precedent in arriving at its Final Order of June 19, 1981. See, e.g., Final Order at 37-38. The Licensing Board's action in this regard is consistent with the Commission's recent reemphasis on the need to limit unnecessary j
f' litigation and to expedite the overall licensing process. See Commission
" Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings."N The only alleged deficiency in the FES argued on appeal is the document's failure to consider the proferred alternative of solar energy or conservation. U It is well established that the environmental 6/
46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (May 27, 1981).
y See btervenor's appeal brief at 9-19, 21-22.
1
[
}
matters to be considered in a particular action are limited to those which bear a logical nexus to the activities authorized thereunder.0I In the present situation, the requested license amendments authorize repairs to the existing steam generators. The impacts of facility The operation, and alurnatives thereto, were evaluated in a 1972 FES.
Appeal Board has consistently recognized that the scope of the environ-mental review performed in connection with an operating licensing amendment is delimited in scope and not equivalent to that performed at the operating license stage.
Such review is essentially confined to a consideration of the extent to which the proposed action will lead to environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated. UIn the present context, this does not extend to a reconsideration of the impacts of continued operation or alternatives to such operation (alternative energy sources or energy measures). As the Appeal Board has succinctly stated in this regard:
Nothing in NEPA or in those judicial decisions to which our attention has been directed dictates that the same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a proposed [ license] amendment....
Rather, it seems manifest to us that all that need be undertaken is a consideration of whether the amendment itself would bring about significant environmental consequences beyond those previously assessed and, if so. whether those consequences (to the extent unavoidable) would be sufficient on balance to require a denial of l
the amendment application. This is true irrespective of whether, by i
l L
8]
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Kleppe, 427 U.S. 390 (1976).
See most recently Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear 9/
Plant), ALAB-636, Slip Op. at 26, 31-32 (March 31,1981); See also i
Vir,ginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 451-58 (1980); Portland Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266-67 and n.6 (1979); Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46 at n.4 (1978);
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974).
- _ _ _ - - happenstance, the particular amendmentg necessary in order to enable continued reactor operation....
' The Staff submits that, by any reasonable measure, b the present FES represents a complete fulfillment of its environmental responsi-bilities in this matter.
The Intervenor's appeal brief wholly ignores this Commission case lat which governs consideration of this issue and which was properly relied upon by the Licensing Board in reaching the conclusion that contentions regarding conservation and solar energy are " irrelevant and beyond the scope of issues that may be considered in this license amendment proceeding."
May 28flemorandum and Order at 28.
Rather, the Intervenor cites at length from a number of federal decisions which discuss the salutary purposes of an environmental impact statement in the most general terms.1/
The Staff does not quarrel with the philosophy espoused in these cases. However, these cases are simply inapposite to the specific question presented in this case.
The Intervenor cites approvingly from several affidavits, submitted in answer to the Staff summary disposition motion, for the proposition that solar energy or energy conservation are available and preferable alternatives to the proposed action (See affidavits in Appendices IV and V to Intervenor's appeal brief). As discussed above, the present efficacy 10/ Prairie Island, supra, 7 NRC at 46, n. 4.
lif See NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837-38 (D.C. Cir.1972) (" rule of Compare this FES, for example, with the July,1980 FES redson").
(NilREG-0692) concerning the Surry steam generator repair accepted by the' Corraission.
12/ See, g, Intervenor's appeal brief, at 17-19.
- _ ~. _ _. -
(
l,
of solar energy or conservation is irrelevant since, as a matter of Commission case law, neither proferred " alternative" is cognizable in this license amendraent proceeding. Accordingly, suanary disposition of this issue of alternatives was appropriate as a matter of law. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(d).
Several lesser claims are touched upon lightly in the Intervenor's July 8,1981 appeal brief. These are, first, a criticism of the Board's treatment of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines; E second, a claim that the impacts of the solid radioactive waste generated as a result of the repair were inadequately considered; b and, third, an assertion that a programmatic environmental impact statement is required in this matter. E The Intervenor does not state which CEQ guidelines, even assuming their applicability, were not followed by the Staff in its environmental review. 16f The second claim about the impacts of repair-generated waste is totally without basis in fact.
Similarly, there is no legal authority to support the proposition that a programmatic impact statement is required under the facts of this case.
With regard to the first item, as the Licensing Board stated, the FES does not violate any CEQ guidelines identified in any Ints.rvenor 13/ 40 C.F.R. b 1500, et seq.; See Appeal brief at 7-9.
This criticism includes both the onsite Appeal brief at 19-20.
14/
storage of the replaced steam generator and components and the low-level solid waste (e.g., glass, clothing, rags) to be temporarily stored onsite in large drums.
15/ M at 11-12.
16/ See M. at 8-9.
k
_g-pleading in this proceeding.E In any event, the Licensing Board properly noted Commission policy in this area that the substantive requirements of the CEQ guidelines are not binding on the f4RC as an independent regulatory agency.E The FES was prepared in conformance with the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 which implement fiEPA. While the Commission has proposed revisions in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 which voluntarily take the CEQ guidelines into account, the applicable notice of proposed rulemaking specifically indicated that, until the proposed revisions were adopted, the present regulations remain in effect.E The Board's disposition of this matter was in accord vith these factors.E The claim regarding the alleged inadequate consideration of the effects uf the generation of radioactive solid waste is wholly unfounded.
The Staff has thoroughly considered the effects of storage of the See replaced steam generator components in the onsite storage compound.
FES, s9 4.1.2.4; 5.5; 8.6.9.
The Staff has also considered the effects from the alternative option of shipping the replaced steam generators to the Barnwell waste burial site.
FES, @5 5.5; 8.6.8; Appendix C.
If the l
l I
1]7f See liay 28 liemorandua and Order at 9-11.
See May 31, 1979 letter from then f4RC Chairman Hendrie to then CEQ 18/
Chairman Warren (Appendix VIII to Intervenor's July 8 appeal brief) and Executive Order fio. 11, 991 referenced in the Board's May 28 decision at 9.
19/ 45 Fed. Reg. 13739-40 (March 3,1980).
2_0/ May 28 Memorandum and Order at 9.
a i
l l
steam generators remain in storage onsite for the term of the license, the storage compound will simply be decorvaissioned along with the rest of the See 10 C.F.R. s 50.82.
plant, as a relatively minor part of such activity.
The generation and management of low-level solid waste as a result See of the repair has also been extensively considered by the Staff.
FES, ss 4.1; 2.2; 8.6.9; Staff affidavit of M. Grotenhuis, dated June 9, This matter is more fully discussed in the following section of 1981.
this brief.
Finally, the environmental effects of a hurricane striking the site during or after the proposed repair have been considered in the FES. See s5 4.4; 8.6.5.
This matter has also been fully analyzed in Staff testimony on Contention 4.
See Staff affidavits of R. Codell, R. Abbey, and M. Grotenhuis. The Licensing Board properly notes that this subject has received perhaps more thorough consideration than any other aspect of the licensing action in question. b Lastly, asserting that the present steam generator repair is one of three for which approval has been sought or granted, the Intervenor drgues that a programmatic statement is required in connection with the present action. Appeal brief at 23-24. The Licensing Board rejected this argunent on the grounds that no factual or legal au*.hority had been shown to support such a proposition. May 28 Memorandum and Order at 11-12.
It was decided in Sierra Club v. Kleppe (see n.8 supra),
b and the Board cited approvingly by both the Intervenor on appeal below,h that a programmatic impact statement is required for several 21/ See, e.g., May 28 Memorandum and Order at 14-15, 21-23.
1 g Intervenor appeal brief at 23.
23] May 28 Memorandum and Order at 12 n. 23.
__ L activities if there is a single proposal for federal action relative to such activities or if there are several proposals before the agency with regard to activities which will entail a cuuulative environmental impact. 427 U.S. at 399, 409-410. As the Licensing Board properly found, neither situation obtains in the case at bar.
The present licensing action is not part of a comprehensive federal Further, as the proposal or program regarding steam generator repairs.
FES clearly attests, any environmental impacts experienced as a result of the present repairs will be on a local, rather than national, basis.
The Licensing Board concluded that such inoividual actions with discrete and discernible local effects do not require a programmatic impact statement and cited approvingly from prior NRC decisions concerning the Surry steam generator repaiM and Trojan spent fuel pool expansion _5/
2 actions which are in accord. The Staff agrees. The preser.t case contrasts sharply with instances fir which past NRC programmatic statements have been prepared.E Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2_4/
2), DD-79-19, 10 NRC 625, 639-42 (steam generator repair did not require programmatic statement). This asper.t of the Director's decision was not disturbed by the Commission on review.
CLI-80-4, 11 r4RC 405 (1980).
_2_5/ Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 5
9 NRC 263, 267-8 (1979).
2_6/ See, eg., Scientists Institute for Public Information v. AEC, 481 6
F.2d lul9 (D.C. Cir.1973) (liquid metal fast breeder reactor program).
~
- _ _ - __.__ 2.
Tne Licensing Board did not err in granting sur. nary disposition of Contention 4B. There are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the likelihood that impermissible levels of radiation will be released to unrestricted areas as a result of a hurricane striking the site during the steam generator cegu Contention 4, as reformulated during the March 26, 1981 prehearing conference, had two parts to it.
Contention 4A alleged that the release of impermissible levels of radiation to unrestricted areas was likely in the event that a hurricane or tornado struck the site during the onsite storage of the replaced steam generators. As previously noted, the unopposed Staff motion for summary disposition of Contention 4.'. was granted by Board Order of May 7,1981. Contention 4B alleged that the release of impermissible levels of radiation to unrestricted areas was likely in the event a hurricane or tornado struck the site during the steam generator repairs themselves.
(a) duouary 01soosition of that Portion of Contention 4B Regarding Stedhi Generators On April 27, 1981, the Staff moved for summary disposition of Contention 4B, accompanied by a statement of material facts and supporting a#fidavit of a Staff expert on the issue (See Appendix II to Intervenor's appeal brief). The Staff motion papers demonstrated, in material part, that tnere is virtually no chance that a steam generator outside of containment will be moved by either a local hurricane or tornado, let alone in a manner which will cause a release of activity.
The accident risk due to a hurricane or tornado-generated missile (projectiile) during the repair is similarly small. Even in the event the steam g5nerators were actually breached by a hurricane or tornado, the radiological consequences of such accident would fall within the penaissible radiation levels of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 although such regulatory limits are 6pplicable to normal reactor operations, rather than to acckdent conditions. Motion at 12-13. The Applicant filed an answer in support of the Staff motion with an accompanying affidavit of three of its experts (See Appendix III to Intcrvenor's appeal brief). The 1
Intertenor filed an answer to the Staff motion on !!ay 20, 1981. The Intervenor did not controvert the statement of material facts which a.ccompanied the Staff summary disposition motion relative to the absence of a hurricane or tornado risk to the steam generators during the repair operation.b Consequently, these facts are deemed to have been admitted.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a). flor does the Intervenor challenge the accuracy of these facts on appeal. /
(b) flew Matter Related to Contention 4B In its response to the Staff's motion for summary disposition of Contention 4B, Intervenor, for tne first time during the course of the entire proceeding, evidenced a concern over the impact of a hurricane upon the storage containers for low-level solid waste generated by the repairs.
(See affidavits of D. King and L. Pardue in Appendices VI and VII to Intervenor appeal brief). The parties were never put on notice that the Intervenor perceived this matter as falling within the scope of Contention 4B.
The Intervenor's affiants posited that the storage con-tainers could be breached in a hurricane. Significantly, however, they did not specify what radiological consequences could be expected in such event nor did they conclude that such releases would exceed permissible regulatory levels. The Board could not conclude that the allegation
~
e jl7/ See Intervenor May 20, 1981 response to sumary disposition motion.
28/ See Intervenor appeal brief at 22-23.
-~
regarding low-level waste constituted a genuine issue of material fact so as to defeat summary disposition. Therefore, the Licensing Board granted the motion for summary dispositio of Contention 4B in its liay 28 Ilemorandum and Order. At the same time, however, the Licensing Board retained jurisdiction over this matter and directed the parties to submit additional information and statements of position regarding the onsite storage of repair-generated low-level solid waste. The Board was perhaps attempting to ascertian whether the matter was significant enough to warrant evidentiary consideration under 10 CFR 9 2.760a.
After considering the parties' submissions (including affidavits) on this matter, the Board concluded in its June 19, 1981 Final Order that "the impact of a hurricane or tornado on the [ low-level waste] produced by the steam generator repairs will not pose a significant radiological hazard to the public." Final Order at 6.
The responses of the Appli-cant and Staff demonstrate that, even if all the containers potentially involved were breached, the resultant releases would be within permissible levels. Significantly, the Intervenor's pleading again contained no opinion on the radiological effect of breaching the storage drums as a result of a hurricane. As a result, the Board reaffirmed its May 28 Memorandum and l
Order, finally terminated the proceeding, and authorized the license amend-l ments at issue. The Intervenor filed exceptions to this Order on June 27, 1981. On August 12, the Staff received a brief in support of these exceptions. The Staff will address the briefed exceptions to the Final Order in a future brief on or before September 21, 1981 in accordance with the briefing" provisions of 10 CFR S 2.762.
l l
3.
Intervenor's request for oral argument should be denied The Intervenor's appeal brief contains a request for oral argument.
It is argued that the steam generator repairs "will nave a major and direct impact on millions of Floridians now and for generations to come" and that oral argument will enable the Appeal Board to question counsel "with respect to the procedural and substantive issues presented by this case."E The first argument is not substantiated on the record and, in the judgment of the Staff, the important " procedural.and substantive issues" have been fairly joined in the parties' briefs making further elucidation unnecessary.
The present appeal involves elemental principles of sucinary dis-position and the scope of a license amendment proceeding. The under-lying licensing action is neither novel no sique. A steam generator repair like that underway at Turkey Point has already been successfully perfonned at the Surry nuclear plant. There is ample evidence of record to support the expectation that the present repairs will be equally successful.
The decision below was exceptionally well crafted and comprehensive.
The Board's application of the law and facts was clear and concise.
Summary disposition of the two contentions in dispute was mandated under the circumstances. The Intervenor has presented no statement of material facts either below or on appeal which are in genuine dispute and summary
_2_9/ See Intervenor appeal brief at 1.
b l
I 1
. disposition was proper as a natter of law.
Intervenor's papers in this regard are in contrast to the considerabic evidentiary record presented in the surEary disposition papers of the Staff and Applicant. Cf. North Anna, supra. Oral arguaent, under these circumstances, would constitute an unnecessary expenditure of additional time and effort on behalf of the e
Appeal Board and the parties.
V.
CONCLUSION In light of the above, the Staff believes that the instant appeal
.I which is the subject of Intervenor's June 6,1981 exceptions should be denied and the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of May 28, 1981 affirmed.
Respectfully submitted, dh(W.7/uwg
[ASteven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this 24th day of August,1981.
i e
e l
e
?
r-.
...--..,w--,
.a.
w..--,.
y
,e r
n.
..-.,n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile A_ OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD _
T In the Matter of 1
h Docket Nos. 50-250 50-251 FLOR J DA POWEx........._ Co.......V (Proposed Amendments to facility vw i om rm (TurkeyPointNuclearGenerating Operating Licenses to Permit SteamGeneratorRepair)
Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4)
CERTIF~CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR 28, 1981 in the above-captioned EXCEPTIONS TO LICENSING BOARD ORDER DATED MAY proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicato by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of August, 1981.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Mr. Mark P. Oncavage Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 12200 S.W. 110th Avenue Board Miami, Florida 33176 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Dr. W. Reed Johnson
& Toll Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C.
20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Burt Saunders, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Assistant Dade County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Ttomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Miami, Florida 33130 Soard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Norman A. Coll, Esq.
Steel, Hector & Davis Washington, D.C.
205b5
- Southeast First National Bank Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Building Administrative Judge Miami, Florida 33131 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Neil Chonin, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Counsel for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.
Dr. Emeth A. Luebke One S.E. 3rd Avenue Administrative Judge Miami, Florida 33131 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Henry H. Harnage, Esq.
Peninsula Federal Bldg., I,2h Floor Washington, 'D.C.
20555
- 200 S.E. First Street Dr. Oscar H.'faris Miami, Florida 33131 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
2055b
- Washington, D.C.
20555
- 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~
Panel U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Conrnission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 d
h liitzi A. Young Counsel for NRC Staff f
~
-